|
Disunity? However unfortunate, the latest development within EDA is a golden opportunity to examine the organizational challenges we continue to face. Many astute observers such as Mr. Saleh Younis, Mr. Amanuel Iyasu, Mr. Daniel Rezene and others have written, as always, excellent articles giving different perspectives to the underlying issues. I would like to bring a different perspective to the analysis, i.e. the ostensible reasons for the current disunity at EDA level will discourage individual political parties from merging. Without being privy to the proceedings of the meetings and yet being the helplessly a guessing man, my assessment of the discord is done on two levels: first, at organizational rule level (objective level) and, second, at the level of what the spirit of any gatherings should be (subjective level). However, it should be noted that between objectivity and subjectivity, ultimately we must advocate for objectivity. Otherwise, organizational rules will be breached every time resulting in dysfunctional organizations, and by extension, creating dysfunctional societies and nations. If votes must be apportioned, every member should ensure the voting shares represent its interests in the organization. Beyond that, if the spirit of achieving organizational business is ‘consensus’ rather than ‘numbers’, the bylaws must be formulated to take these factors into consideration. Although the 2/3 quorum and ¾ votes might be designed for such purposes, it still hasn’t served its purposes. Objective Level: Organizational Rule (bylaws) I will use the same terms used to refer to the disagreeing groups, i.e. Block 1 being RC, DP and NC, and Block 2 being the remainders, except Al Nahda which has withdrawn its membership. Organizations
Based on this analysis, Quorum: Was two-third (2/3) of the members present? Assuming Alnahda’s withdrawal constitutes a reduction in the number of members in EDA, then 2/3 of the members were present to continue organizational business. Electing Officers: According to Block 1, the organizational bylaws state that ¾ of the members (of leadership) must vote in favor to elect officers. According to Block 2, it doesn’t seem that they dispute the ¾ vote requirement in the EDA bylaws, but argue that ¾ majority vote isn’t workable. The question then becomes, can the quorum present (68.4% which is roughly 2/3) be enough to amend EDA’s organizational bylaws to require only 50%+1 to elect officers? If yes, then Mr. H. Khalifa’s election is valid. If no, then EDA is in disarray unless a solution is found soon. This is tantamount to EDA’s demise unless the two blocks reach consensus. Subjective Level: Challenges of Diaspora Opposition One of the most contentious issues for current and aspiring EDA members has been how to assign voting rights. Some argued for more votes for “bigger” organizations, while others argued for equal votes regardless of “size” because measuring any organization’s “size” is highly subjective. During EDA’s current Congress, ENSF agreed to give up its 12 votes for 4 votes as a merged organization. It isn’t difficult to guess that ENSF wouldn’t have given up its larger shares of votes unless the working spirit within EDA had been based on consensus in the past rather than a ‘game of votes’. The implication of what Block 2 has done by resorting to the voting game is to discourage mergers among political organizations. For instance, if ENSF had stayed as separate NC, EPM and ERDF, Block 1 would have had much larger share of the voting block and thus enabling to continue to work on consensus basis rather than voting rights basis. Had ENSF not given up its extra 8 votes, Block 1 would have had 42% of the votes and thus EDA wouldn’t have had the quorum to conduct its business, or more likely, members would have continued to pursue ‘consensus’ to reach at decisions. We cheered when ENSF merged stating that this is an act to be emulated by other political organizations. But if a merger results in carrying smaller votes and thus less political weight, does this mean that merger is foolhardy? Would resorting to ‘majority vote’ rather than ‘consensus’ lead to proliferation of Diaspora political organizations in order to chase ‘votes’ rather than encouraging merger and coalescence? We have to examine the ramifications of what Block 2 has done. Barely one week after realigning votes to encourage ‘consensus’, taking advantage of such vote realignments to declare majority may have seriously and irreversibly eroded trust within the EDA. Wild Speculation: Was there a trade-off between Block 1 and Block 2 to remove Sections 3 & 4 in exchange for ENSF giving up its votes, or are these two significant moves [ that we are aware of that came out of this meeting] totally coincidental? Did Block 2 have shrewd strategy to become the “majority” within EDA? Would Block 2 reinstate Sections 3 & 4 after realigning voting shares and ‘taking over’ EDA? What is Block 2’s ultimate aim by pursuing the ‘majority’ vs. ‘minority’ number’s game? Conclusion: Although Block 2 may have had quorum to conduct business after the new realignment of votes (assuming Alnahda’s withdrawal reduces membership), and even assuming that EDA’s organizational bylaws may allow Block 2 to amend the provisions to elect officers, regardless, resorting to voting game rather than building consensus leads to proliferation of political parties rather than encouraging mergers, and worse, leading to ill-will. One can easily imagine the amount of ill-will that may result when ENSF gives up its 8 votes after its exemplary merger believing that EDA’s decision is based on consensus only to find out that ‘voting rights’ are the ‘name of the game’. It is important to note that ultimately organizations are most effective when ‘goodwill’ is practiced rather than playing the numbers game. This is especially crucial where organizational voting shares are allocated on ‘goodwill’ basis rather than on established general democratic rules. At the end of the day, I must agree with Mr. Saleh Younis’ comment on the outcome of the EDA Congress. It might just be a blessing in disguise. EDA’s role Some have expressed extreme anguish over the latest developments. Although any kind of disagreement or even disunity isn’t desirable, EDA’s fate shouldn’t be viewed as a precursor of what awaits democratic Eritrea. Naturally, we should learn the lessons but we must examine the factors that exist in Diaspora politics that may not exist in domestic politics. Among many other factors, there are over 4 million Eritreans who will align Eritrean politics. First, the most significant obstacle within Diaspora opposition is that there is no workable means to measure the “size” of any organization. In domestic politics, “strong” or “weak” political organizations can be measured by paying and active members or through ballot boxes. Second, what motivates opposition politician in Diaspora might be different than what motivates opposition politician inside the country. For example, we may examine Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
The premise is that no one would consider level 2 needs until level 1 need is met. Thus a Diaspora politician, or even an activist, who has achieved level 3, 4 or 5 needs may conduct politics at that level than what the average citizen in Eritrea finds himself/herself, which is level 1 or level 2 needs. It may be argued that a political representative who is still at level 2 or level 3 needs might be better suited to represent level 1 or 2 needs citizen than a politician who has reached level 5 needs (thus might be disconnected from reality in Eritrea). In my view, we have to totally disconnect the dynamics that exists in Diaspora from those that exist within Eritrea. In Diaspora, the dynamics is more towards discord while the dynamics within Eritrea is more towards compromise on real issues. The key factor is that in Eritrea one is living within the community, society or nation one is serving and thus multitude of other factors ensure that politicians’ interests remain aligned with realities on the ground. Although while learning the lessons, we should vehemently reject any attempt to project political realities in Diaspora as what we should expect in democratic Eritrea. Third, as Mr. Berhane Yemane (ex-EDA chairman) stated in his very insightful interview with GIC [Feb. 26, 2007] that there are some realities we must keep in mind when ascertaining EDA’s role in Eritrean politics. Mr. Berhane said [as I understand it],
Mr. Berhane addressed the pertinent points so well that this writer can’t add any more comments, except to say, bingo! Role of Political Activists Political activists can be defined as individuals and groups who may not be directly associated or involved within political institutions but pursue political activism to achieve certain political aims. What normally distinguishes political activists from politicians include that they don’t directly derive income from the political institutions (i.e. based mostly volunteerism) and their motivations might be highly influenced by justice, freedom and higher ideals. As every society needs farmers, shoemakers, blacksmith, tailor, etc…, a political system needs different forms of participants at various levels. Some will be politicians, while others lobbyists, and others activists. If everyone aspires to become politicians or to be leaders, then the entire system will collapse. Some should just remain as activists without becoming politicians for our political system to work. Because politicians work closely with each other, they may lose their objectivities when dealing with their peers. Over the years, politicians working closely with each other may result in excess baggage which may lead ineffective leadership and even constant infighting. It is political activists’ role to re-inject objectivism into the political system. Political activists can’t campaign on ‘banner slogans’ only. Because political activists are removed from the direct game of dirty politics, they are in an ideal position to address issues on objective basis. Political activists can espouse shared vision because there is a lesser tendency towards individual politics than politicians do. As a result, political activists have a responsibility to articulate what is expected from our politicians and political system. Political activists may advocate for, say, ‘unity’, but also have responsibilities to present their case for ‘unity’ in comprehensive manner in writings or other forms of campaigns. Otherwise, harping on ‘one word pleadings’ like ‘Adey Kusto’ [i.e. inactive citizen] doesn’t serve our politics well. Political activists have equal responsibilities to address national, political or organizational issues, but with different approaches than politicians. Political activists have different functions and must play their roles in order for the overall political system to work properly. Meskerem.net’s False Debates Without appearing to abridge its rights to express its views and to invite debates, this website’s claim that it is striving to ‘level the playing field’ through debates, coverage or presentation is a sham. If Meskerem.net is truly interested in productive debates to ‘level the playing field’, it should call for a debate between PIA and Min. Haile Drue. Any other debate [between regime and opposition] is false and meaningless. Hijiwin Ab’Metkelna!
Berhan Hagos |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The views expressed in articles published on Arkokabay.com are those of the authors alone. They do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Arakokabay.com or its Editorial Board |
ما ينشر من مقالات في موقع عركوكباي.كوم يعبر عن رأي صاحبه ولا يعبر بالضرورة عن رأي الموقع والقائمين عليه. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Send mail to Arkokabay with questions, comments, opinions and/or articles |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2007-03-03 01:25 :Copyright © 2005 Last modified |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||